BN66 - Time to fight back (Chapter 3)

[BenniDorm]

Closure Notice

Just got back yesterday to see the HMRC's XMas present to me...! Their timing is perfect isn't it...!

I have three years being demanded....6 figures....!

I have sent the details to MP, what actions can I expect from them?

I assume I need to appeal or will MP do that on my behalf?

All advice welcome.

You have to be some sort of sick B*****d to send this sort of stuff out don't you, especially at this time of year...!

Thanks again for all who continue to post as it's always eagerly read.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

I am with de graaf, only since last year. I have been receiving the letters from HMRC, and have been responding using de graaf's suggested letters. Got latest reply from HMRC today.

To summarise - "where the only ground of appeal is alleged incompatibility with human rights, ........................ the Act does not provide for the legislation to be set aside even if a finding of incompatibility were made. The only remedy ............. is a declaration of incompatibility. Such a declaration cannot be made by the General or Special Commissioners, but only by the High Court or above" (So - we will pursue this even if we lose JR)

"The human Rights Act "does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible primary legislation"" (ditto)

If a declaration of incompatibility is made "it remains for Parliament to decide what, if any, action to take" (this has to go higher than JR)

"The effect of this is that the outcome of the JR will not in itself change the law and the tax will remain due" (swivel, you barsteward)

Any thoughts?

feels like this could go on a long time to me

If this is the case, what are they waiting for? Why don't they just take one of the Closure Notice appeals to the Special Commissioners now and have done with it?

It is easy to say that they can ignore a High Court ruling but the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Until they demonstrate otherwise, all their empty threats are just bluff and bravado.

[BrilloPad]

I am with de graaf, only since last year. I have been receiving the letters from HMRC, and have been responding using de graaf's suggested letters. Got latest reply from HMRC today.

To summarise - "where the only ground of appeal is alleged incompatibility with human rights, ........................ the Act does not provide for the legislation to be set aside even if a finding of incompatibility were made. The only remedy ............. is a declaration of incompatibility. Such a declaration cannot be made by the General or Special Commissioners, but only by the High Court or above" (So - we will pursue this even if we lose JR)

"The human Rights Act "does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible primary legislation"" (ditto)

If a declaration of incompatibility is made "it remains for Parliament to decide what, if any, action to take" (this has to go higher than JR)

"The effect of this is that the outcome of the JR will not in itself change the law and the tax will remain due" (swivel, you barsteward)

Any thoughts?

feels like this could go on a long time to me

montp clients got similar : its all bluff and bravado.

they are just sad bullies who failed to join the police so did the next best thing : make sure de graaf are aware then ignore it.

But I agree : this will take years to resolve.

[Toocan]

If a declaration of incompatibility is made "it remains for Parliament to decide what, if any, action to take" (this has to go higher than JR)

"The effect of this is that the outcome of the JR will not in itself change the law and the tax will remain due" (swivel, you barsteward)

If Parliament did not then strike out the offending legislation, then the case will be taken to Europe and they will be forced to either remove the legislation or leave the EU.

If the Court declares that the legislation is incompatible with the law (“Human Rights Act”), then will the Courts enforce it? I doubt it.

The government could waste a huge amount of money on this, and they will be the ones that have to pay the bill. Both their own bill and Montpelier’s bill.

Have a look at some of my previous posts on previous HMRC/Government “misguided decisions” where they put their ego before the law.

[Toocan]

Views sought

One of my colleagues was also on the Montpelier scheme and due to where his home is, he has a direct line to Alistair Darling. He wrote to him to complain about BN66 and has received a reply signed by the highland darling himself.

The contents are predictable and reflect Jane Kennedy’s statements to the finance bill committee.

I believe what Jane Kennedy said to the committee was at best misleading and at worst untrue. I wonder if Parliament has a sanction against MP’s who speak other than the truth?

Almost every sentence that Darling has written in his reply can be countered or shown to be untrue.

The question for my colleague is this: Should he bother replying?

Is it worth it? It would only be helpful if Darling can see that their attack on the Montpelier scheme will be shown to be unlawful and will ultimately cost the government a lot of money for no reward.

It’s actually the Civil Service that are lining their pension fund with efforts like this. Maybe we should campaign for the end of civil service final salary pensions too?

Anyway, is it worth getting involved in the political side, or should we just be letting the Courts and Montpelier deal with it?

What do you think?

[BrilloPad]

One of my colleagues was also on the Montpelier scheme and due to where his home is, he has a direct line to Alistair Darling. He wrote to him to complain about BN66 and has received a reply signed by the highland darling himself.

The contents are predictable and reflect Jane Kennedy’s statements to the finance bill committee.

I believe what Jane Kennedy said to the committee was at best misleading and at worst untrue. I wonder if Parliament has a sanction against MP’s who speak other than the truth?

Almost every sentence that Darling has written in his reply can be countered or shown to be untrue.

The question for my colleague is this: Should he bother replying?

Is it worth it? It would only be helpful if Darling can see that their attack on the Montpelier scheme will be shown to be unlawful and will ultimately cost the government a lot of money for no reward.

It’s actually the Civil Service that are lining their pension fund with efforts like this. Maybe we should campaign for the end of civil service final salary pensions too?

Anyway, is it worth getting involved in the political side, or should we just be letting the Courts and Montpelier deal with it?

What do you think?

Very well done to him for writing to AD in the first place : and thanks for letting us know he replied.

IMO it will do no harm by writing : and might even get a result!

Go on : it wont take long and you never know....

[BrilloPad]

Just got back yesterday to see the HMRC's XMas present to me...! Their timing is perfect isn't it...!

I have three years being demanded....6 figures....!

I have sent the details to MP, what actions can I expect from them?

I assume I need to appeal or will MP do that on my behalf?

All advice welcome.

You have to be some sort of sick B*****d to send this sort of stuff out don't you, especially at this time of year...!

Thanks again for all who continue to post as it's always eagerly read.

Sorry to hear that.

MP will appeal it for you.

Dont let the b***ds grind you down : the bn66 thread is here to help.....

[SantaClaus]

One of my colleagues was also on the Montpelier scheme and due to where his home is, he has a direct line to Alistair Darling. He wrote to him to complain about BN66 and has received a reply signed by the highland darling himself.

The contents are predictable and reflect Jane Kennedy’s statements to the finance bill committee.

I believe what Jane Kennedy said to the committee was at best misleading and at worst untrue. I wonder if Parliament has a sanction against MP’s who speak other than the truth?

Almost every sentence that Darling has written in his reply can be countered or shown to be untrue.

The question for my colleague is this: Should he bother replying?

Is it worth it? It would only be helpful if Darling can see that their attack on the Montpelier scheme will be shown to be unlawful and will ultimately cost the government a lot of money for no reward.

It’s actually the Civil Service that are lining their pension fund with efforts like this. Maybe we should campaign for the end of civil service final salary pensions too?

Anyway, is it worth getting involved in the political side, or should we just be letting the Courts and Montpelier deal with it?

What do you think?

If it were me, I would write back to Mr Darling countering every point and demand straight and unambiguous answers. Your colleague is in a very fortunate position to be in Mr Darling's constituency and therefore his questions cannot go unanswered.

Better still, tell your colleague to turn up at Darlings "surgery".

My MP wrote to Stephen Timms on my behalf and forwarded me the same cut-and-paste reply that everyone else got. I then wrote back with counter-questions, suggesting that they should be put forward in the commons. I wont let this issue go and will continue writing until my questions are read out and answered.

Here is a link to my letter:
http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...tml#post719082

[poppy01]

Originally Posted by xantamisch
I am with de graaf, only since last year. I have been receiving the letters from HMRC, and have been responding using de graaf's suggested letters. Got latest reply from HMRC today.

theres a sub text here, does this mean the de graaf clients are awaiting the outcome of the Montpelier sponsored Judicial review?

are de graaf doing nothing pro-active themselves?

[DonkeyRhubarb]

Originally Posted by xantamisch
I am with de graaf, only since last year. I have been receiving the letters from HMRC, and have been responding using de graaf's suggested letters. Got latest reply from HMRC today.

theres a sub text here, does this mean the de graaf clients are awaiting the outcome of the Montpelier sponsored Judicial review?

are de graaf doing nothing pro-active themselves?

A mate of mine is with De Graaf, and he told me that they've also applied for a JR.